Hasmeet S. Uppal, V. ITO Ward 4,

ITA 3969/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8014 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAJEVE DEORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3969/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 HASMEET S. UPPAL, C4/8, DLF PHASE 1, GURGAON, HARYANA . PAN: ACJPG5837G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAJEVE DEORA REVENUE BY : SMT. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 22 ND JUNE, 2007. THERE ARE AS MANY AS 12 GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ASSESS EE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER HAS BEE N PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 READ AS UNDER:- 1.. THAT WITHIN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW ON THE POINT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT (A)) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APP EAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN L AW AND OUGHT TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT WITHIN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW ON THE POINT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN S TATING THAT NOBODY HAD APPEARED ON JUNE 22, 2007, WHEREAS THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT MANAGER HAD PERSONALLY APPEARED AND ITA NO.3969/DEL/2007 2 FILED LETTER DATED JUNE 22, 2007. AS THE CIT (A) W AS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ROOM, THE LETTER WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). 2. FOR REST OF THE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITAT ED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON MERITS. 3. REFERRING TO THE GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY LD. AR THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) AS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT PROVIDED. HE CONTEN DED THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE SATISFIED IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO CONTEND THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PR OVIDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATTER WAS DECIDED BY HIM WITH OUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE:- THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 24.11.2006 BUT NOBODY ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. THEREAFTER, TH E CASE WAS FIXED FOR 8.5.2007. MR. RAHUL RASTOGI, MANAGER (ACCOUNTS ) ATTENDED AND SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT TO THE NEXT CAMP VISIT. THE CASE WAS THEREAFTER RE-FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.6.2007. ON T HAT DATE, MR. RAHUL RASTOGI, MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) ATTENDED AND SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT TO 22.7.2007. HOWEVER, ON THAT DATE, N ONE ATTENDED NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THIS OFFICE BUT TO NO AVAIL. TWO ADJOURNMENTS WERE GIVEN AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT FINALLY NONE ATTENDED ON THE DA TES TO WHICH THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY TO THE AFOREME NTIONED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT AND THUS, DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.3969/DEL/2007 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE SAME. THEREFORE, LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE IMP UGNED ORDER AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT (A), RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED BY LD. AR AND IS R EPRODUCED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER, THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOU RNMENT ON TWO OCCASIONS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THEREFORE, ACCEPTING THE REQUEST OF LD. AR, WE REST ORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE S RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 7. AS WE ARE RESTORING THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A), WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAV E BEEN AGITATED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AS THE SAME WILL BE RE-DECIDED BY THE LD. CI T (A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 8. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 10. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.07 .2009. [R.C. SHARMA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 06.07.2009. DK ITA NO.3969/DEL/2007 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES